On June 1, 2017, the Dilley Pro Bono Project, an organization that provides pro bono legal representation to individuals seeking asylum, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its component agency, ... read more >

On June 1, 2017, the Dilley Pro Bono Project, an organization that provides pro bono legal representation to individuals seeking asylum, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its component agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The case was assigned to Judge Christopher Cooper.

Dilley Pro Bono Project specifically provides legal representation to minors and women confined in the South Texas Family Residential Center, which is in Dilley, Texas. The plaintiff claimed that its First Amendment rights and its clients' right to counsel were violated by a new ICE policy requiring pre-approval of telephonic medical evaluations of people seeking asylum. The plaintiff argued that these medical evaluations were crucial to its ability to represent clients in asylum cases, and that this new hurdle interferes with that representation.

The plaintiff stated that in March 2017, one of its attorneys had her permission to visit the South Texas detention center revoked when she scheduled a telephonic medical evaluation without pre-approval from an ICE agent. ICE then officially issued the pre-approval policy in May. The plaintiff claimed that because it only had two full-time attorneys and four full-time legal assistants at the time, the revocation of one attorney's permission to visit, in addition to the new policy, severely limited its ability to represent clients.

The complaint alleged that the policy and practice of requiring pre-approval unlawfully infringed upon the Dilley Project's First Amendment right to associate with the minors and women in the South Texas detention center, as well as upon those individuals' ability to get adequate counseling. In addition, it alleged that the policy's issuance violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The plaintiff requested both a preliminary and a permanent injunction; it sought reinstatement of visitation rights for the attorney whose permission to visit had been revoked, as well as an order prohibiting ICE from enforcing the pre-approval policy or implementing other similar restrictions. The plaintiff also sought attorneys’ fees.

The parties entered into settlement discussions on August 11, 2017, and reached an agreement on August 15, 2017. The settlement still allows ICE to implement the policy, but the time frame for responding to pre-approval requests for telephonic medical evaluations is limited to within four business hours after the request is made; a notice of scheduling the appointment should be given two hours in advance. If the request is denied, ICE will provide a detailed explanation for the denial. If the plaintiff disagrees with the decision, then the parties will address jointly and informally any such dispute. In addition, the settlement reinstates the visitation permission for the attorney who had that permission revoked. Each party was to pay their own attorneys' fees.

The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement until February 15, 2020. That period has passed and the case is now closed.